|
From: "Eduard van den Braken" <e.vd.braken@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Upgrade to 5.2 - strange occurances? Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 19:31:02 +0200
Rick
Did you run the object conversion of your libraries, or are they withholding
the speedy startup of the programms.
All the files need to be converted or it will be done on first access.
Groetjes (Greetings) =========================================================== Name: Eduard van den Braken E-mail: e.vd.braken@xxxxxxxxx Town: Leusden -- the Netherlands Homepage: http://home.hccnet.nl/e.vd.braken/ ===========================================================
-----Original Message----- From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick Rayburn Sent: zondag 28 september 2003 17:03 To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Upgrade to 5.2 - strange occurances?
Perhaps they are alien only to me but here are some things that have occurred following a release upgrade from 4.3 to 4.5 - then from 4.5 to 5.2 - all in the same weekend:
1. After running a save entire system command following 5.2 installation,
the QSTRUP program did NOT appear to fire up...which, I am being told, it
should have. Our sysval is set to QSTRUP.QGPL (thought I'd bring back old 38
syntax for a laugh)...and that object does not appear to have been touched for months.
2. there seems to be noticeable performance issues in our application software AND, it appears, with PDM access as well. Some interractive application menu options are taking up to 5x longer to engage - only on the initial time in! Then, it is fine.
There are no messages that I can see about access path rebuilds...the system
memory and pool configuration looks basically the same save for a meg or 2 difference.
We are NOT using access groups (meaning we are using the IBM default all the
time)...could there be some "object recognition" on the first engagement to
"correct" the usage of the dreaded "default access group" associated with
the object (if there is even such an association captured in the template)?
My knowledge of how the access groups work specifically are admittedly scant
so this theory is 1000% guess work and may, in fact, have no legitimacy whatsoever.
We just do not understand why we are experiencing this performance problem.
3. Are there any other "gotchas" to keep a groggy eye on?
Thanks to all.
Rick Rayburn NJ
_________________________________________________________________ Instant message during games with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com
_______________________________________________ This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
_______________________________________________ This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.